idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC5440, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2005-11-29) -- The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, and may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is necessary when there are original authors that you have been unable to contact, or if some do not wish to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust. If you are able to get all authors (current and original) to grant those rights, you can and should remove the disclaimer; otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (January 10, 2018) is 2297 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 PCE Working Group D. Dhody 3 Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies 4 Updates: 5440 (if approved) D. King 5 Intended status: Standards Track Lancaster University 6 Expires: July 14, 2018 A. Farrel 7 Juniper Networks 8 January 10, 2018 10 Experimental Codepoint Allocation for the Path Computation Element 11 communication Protocol (PCEP) 12 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-exp-codepoints-05 14 Abstract 16 IANA assigns values to the Path Computation Element (PCE) 17 communication Protocol (PCEP) parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). 18 IANA established a top-level registry to contain all PCEP codepoints 19 and sub-registries. This top-level registry contains sub-registries 20 for PCEP message, object and TLV types. The allocation policy for 21 each of these sub-registries is IETF Review. 23 This document updates RFC 5440 by changing the allocation policies 24 for these three registries to mark some of the code points as 25 assigned for Experimental Use. 27 Status of This Memo 29 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 30 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 32 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 33 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 34 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 35 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 37 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 38 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 39 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 40 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 42 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 14, 2018. 44 Copyright Notice 46 Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 47 document authors. All rights reserved. 49 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 50 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 51 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 52 publication of this document. Please review these documents 53 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 54 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 55 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 56 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 57 described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF 60 Contributions published or made publicly available before November 61 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this 62 material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow 63 modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. 64 Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling 65 the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified 66 outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may 67 not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format 68 it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other 69 than English. 71 Table of Contents 73 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 74 2. PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 75 3. PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 76 4. PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 77 5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 78 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 79 6.1. New PCEP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 80 6.2. New PCEP Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 81 6.3. New PCEP TLVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 82 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 83 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 84 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 85 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 86 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 87 Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 88 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 90 1. Introduction 92 The Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) [RFC5440] 93 provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform 94 path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) 95 requests. 97 Further, in order to support use cases described in [RFC8051], 98 [RFC8231] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful 99 control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSPs via PCEP. [RFC8281] describes the 100 setup, maintenance and teardown of PCE-initiated LSPs under the 101 stateful PCE model. 103 In section 9 of [RFC5440], IANA assigns values to the PCEP protocol 104 parameters (messages, objects, TLVs). IANA established a top- level 105 registry to contain all PCEP codepoints and sub-registries. This 106 top-level registry contains sub-registries for PCEP message, object 107 and TLV types. The allocation policy for each of these sub- 108 registries is IETF Review [RFC8126]. Also, early allocation 109 [RFC7120] provides some latitude for allocation of these code points, 110 but is reserved for features that are considered appropriately 111 stable. 113 Recently, there have been rapid advancements in PCE technology, which 114 has created an enhanced need to experiment with PCEP. It is often 115 necessary to use some sort of number or constant in order to actually 116 test or experiment with the new function, even when testing in a 117 closed environment. In order to run experiments, it is important 118 that the value won't collide not only with existing codepoints but 119 any future allocation. 121 This document updates [RFC5440] by changing the allocation policies 122 for these three registries to mark some of the code points as 123 assigned for Experimental Use. As stated in [RFC3692], experiments 124 using these code points are not intended to be used in general 125 deployments and due care must be taken to ensure that two experiments 126 with the same code points are not run in the same environment. See 127 [RFC3692] for further discussion of the use of experimental 128 codepoints. 130 2. PCEP Messages 132 PCEP message types are in the range 0 to 255. This document sets 133 aside message types 252-255 for experimentation as described in 134 Section 6.1. 136 3. PCEP Objects 138 PCEP objects are identified by values in the range 0 to 255. This 139 document sets aside object identifiers 248-255 for experimentation as 140 described in Section 6.2. 142 4. PCEP TLVs 144 PCEP TLV type codes are in the range 0 to 65535. This document sets 145 aside object identifiers 65504-65535 for experimentation as described 146 in Section 6.2. 148 5. Handling of Unknown Experimentation 150 A PCEP implementation that receives an experimental PCEP message, 151 that it does not recognize, would react as per section 6.9 of 152 [RFC5440] by sending a PCErr message with Error-value=2 (capability 153 not supported). 155 If a PCEP speaker does not understand or support an experimental 156 object then the way it handles this situation depends on the message 157 type. For example, a PCE handles an unknown object in the Path 158 Computation Request (PCReq) message according to the rules of 159 [RFC5440]. Message-specific behavior may be specified (e.g., 160 [RFC8231] defines rules for a PCC to handle an unknown object in a 161 Path Computation LSP Update (PCUpd) Request message). 163 As per section 7.1 of [RFC5440], unknown experimental PCEP TLV would 164 be ignored. 166 6. IANA Considerations 168 IANA maintains the "Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) Numbers" 169 at . 171 6.1. New PCEP Messages 173 Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Messages 174 (see PCEP Messages at ). 176 IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this 177 registry to read as follows: 179 0-251 IETF Review 180 252-255 Experimental Use 182 IANA is also requested to mark the values 252-255 in the registry 183 accordingly. 185 6.2. New PCEP Objects 187 Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP Objects 188 (see PCEP Objects at ). 190 IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this 191 registry to read as follows: 193 0-247 IETF Review 194 248-255 Experimental Use 196 IANA is also requested to mark the values 248-255 in the registry 197 accordingly. 199 6.3. New PCEP TLVs 201 Within this registry IANA maintains a sub-registry for PCEP TLVs (see 202 PCEP TLV Type Indicators at ). 204 IANA is requested to change the registration procedure for this 205 registry to read as follows: 207 0-65503 IETF Review 208 65504-65535 Experimental Use 210 IANA is also requested to mark the values 65504-65535 in the registry 211 accordingly. 213 7. Security Considerations 215 This document does not introduce any new security considerations to 216 the existing protocol. Refer to [RFC5440] for further details of the 217 specific security measures. 219 [RFC3692] asserts that the existence of experimental code points 220 introduce no new security considerations. However, implementations 221 accepting experimental codepoints need to take care in how they parse 222 and process the messages, objects, and TLVs in case they come, 223 accidentally, from another experiment. Further, an implementation 224 accepting experimental code points needs to consider the security 225 aspects of the experimental extensions. [RFC6709] provide various 226 design considerations for protocol extensions (including those 227 designated as experimental). 229 8. Acknowledgments 231 The authors would like to thank Ramon Casellas, Jeff Tantsura, Julien 232 Meuric, Lou Berger, Michael Shroff, and Andrew Dolganow for their 233 feedback and suggestions. 235 We would like to thank Jonathan Hardwick for shepherding this 236 document and providing comments with text suggestions. 238 Thanks Brian Carpenter for the GENART review. Thanks Ben Niven- 239 Jenkins and Scott Bradner for RTGDIR and OPSDIR reviews respectively. 241 9. References 243 9.1. Normative References 245 [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers 246 Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, 247 DOI 10.17487/RFC3692, January 2004, 248 . 250 [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation 251 Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, 252 DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, 253 . 255 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 256 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 257 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 258 . 260 [RFC8231] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Medved, J., and R. Varga, "Path 261 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 262 Extensions for Stateful PCE", RFC 8231, 263 DOI 10.17487/RFC8231, September 2017, 264 . 266 [RFC8281] Crabbe, E., Minei, I., Sivabalan, S., and R. Varga, "Path 267 Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) 268 Extensions for PCE-Initiated LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE 269 Model", RFC 8281, DOI 10.17487/RFC8281, December 2017, 270 . 272 9.2. Informative References 274 [RFC6709] Carpenter, B., Aboba, B., Ed., and S. Cheshire, "Design 275 Considerations for Protocol Extensions", RFC 6709, 276 DOI 10.17487/RFC6709, September 2012, 277 . 279 [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code 280 Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January 281 2014, . 283 [RFC8051] Zhang, X., Ed. and I. Minei, Ed., "Applicability of a 284 Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", RFC 8051, 285 DOI 10.17487/RFC8051, January 2017, 286 . 288 Appendix A. Other PCEP Registries 290 Based on feedback from the PCE WG, it was decided to allocate an 291 Experimental code point range only in the message, object and TLV 292 sub-registries. The justification for this decision is that, if an 293 experiment finds that it wants to use a new code point in another 294 PCEP sub-registry, it can implement the same function using a new 295 experimental object or TLV instead. 297 Authors' Addresses 299 Dhruv Dhody 300 Huawei Technologies 301 Divyashree Techno Park, Whitefield 302 Bangalore, Karnataka 560066 303 India 305 EMail: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com 307 Daniel King 308 Lancaster University 309 UK 311 EMail: d.king@lancaster.ac.uk 313 Adrian Farrel 314 Juniper Networks 315 UK 317 EMail: afarrel@juniper.net